Originally posted by The Ellimist
Circular logic, and yeah in a debate forum there is typically some etiquette that includes "don't label things you don't like racist and then dismiss them", which is less arbitrary and more like the basis of all debate. If I said that black people are more likely to get sickle cell disease should I get banned? What if I say white people are more likely to become serial killers? Where do you draw the line without needing to analyze the arguments first?
I didn't label something I just "didn't like racist." I labeled something that was overtly racist... as racist.
Originally posted by Benithesoyboy
The whole reason I'm a sock is because I was banned for the exact same thing many times... race realism.
He's right. That's why he was banned and it also goes by another (much more fitting) term and that's "scientific racism." It's pseudoscience that can be as quickly dismissed as it's asserted. I don't indulge or apply "debate etiquette" rules to factually incorrect, transparently racist nonsense. It's a waste of fucking time.
If I said that black people are more likely to get sickle cell disease should I get banned? What if I say white people are more likely to become serial killers? Where do you draw the line without needing to analyze the arguments first?
Those are things worth discussion because those are genuine facts that have no business being compared to scientific racism or other axiomatically dubious claims.
Where do you draw the line without needing to analyze the arguments first?
Asians are basically whites with pointier teeth and eyes.
Probably there. Or laughing at a picture that says black men and women get lower response rates to their messages. That's a decent place to draw a line to analyze. Not every statement deserves argumentation and the individual making it is also of paramount importance.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
tbf Ziggy is a troll who isn't interested in productive discussion regardless of whether it's politics or SW; I was more talking about the general principle.
If you were talking about the "general principle", then don't say this to me:
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Sure but this claim would require you to address the arguments on their merits and not to just dismiss them on your whim.
Because my claim doesn't require addressing his "arguments" on their "merits" because they're not really arguments and have no merit. Vapid prejudice is worthy of quick dismissal.
👆 I love how complete bullshit being dismissed as complete bullshit is now being construed as some form of cowardice or intellectual dishonesty. It’s how “race realists” and ethno-nationalists try to manipulate the environment to gain more credibility and pretend as if their stances are worth confronting as if they’re on an even ground.
Originally posted by The Lost
It's pseudoscience that can be as quickly dismissed as it's asserted.
I'd be interested in hearing your case here, given that a plurality of intelligence researchers* think the genetic component to ethnic gaps in intelligence is nonzero. I can almost predict what arguments you're going to use, and unless you've done your research very well they'll be pretty easy to knock down.
* when anonymously polled.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
👆 I love how complete bullshit being dismissed as complete bullshit is now being construed as some form of cowardice or intellectual dishonesty. It’s how “race realists” and ethno-nationalists try to manipulate the environment to gain more credibility and pretend as if their stances are worth confronting as if they’re on an even ground.
Yeah but you're not a psychometrician Joker so I can guarantee that if I actually asked you to explain what the methodological errors in the race realist arguments were you'd draw a blank. You're saying it's bullshit because you think it's offensive, not because you've done serious research on the issue.
Of course, that's not to say there aren't flaws in the alt-right's logic - you just aren't interested in them, it seems.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its true. None of us have PHDs so none of us have the right to call bullshit on Asians having pointy eyes and teeth.Face it guys, we just aren't nearly as enlightened as Ellimist the Wise is.
Yes, the notion that you should actually debate empirical claims on the facts and research is worthy of mockery. There's a reason everyone on this forum considers you a joke of a debater, Neph. 👆
Originally posted by NephthysEllimist is one of those falsely arrogant kids who believes he's the smartest guy in the room and that the facts don't matter. He rarely if ever listens and just can't wait respond. He isn't reasonable and uses double standards all the ****ing time but he's to delusional to ever see it.
Its true. None of us have PHDs so none of us have the right to call bullshit on Asians having pointy eyes and teeth.Face it guys, we just aren't nearly as enlightened as Ellimist the Wise is.
Neph realized that everyone thinks he's a bitter hasbeen broken by Tempest so he's trying to remake his character and play the smug joker. It's too late, sadly - everyone already thinks you're a sensitive joke.
(The funny thing is I'd been trying to reconcile with you since my return but you decided to ruin it - oh well)
Originally posted by NephthysAnd there it is he will retreat just like he did against me. He will use personal insults and mockery to make up for his emotional insecurities/lack of debating prowess.
Oh man, you are triggered. 😆
He says he's great but he won't step in the ring. He's a coward deserving of no respect and no quarter.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'd be interested in hearing your case here, given that a plurality of intelligence researchers* think the genetic component to ethnic gaps in intelligence is nonzero. I can almost predict what arguments you're going to use, and unless you've done your research very well they'll be pretty easy to knock down.* when anonymously polled.
I'm going to go ahead and warn you right here because Twotter didn't get the same warning and got buried alive trying to argue genetics (and genealogy) with me from a position of scientific racism. I'm being one hundred percent genuine and not attempting to patronize. Seriously.
I'm not automatically saying you're going to sit here and advocate or argue for scientific racism, as I don't know you nor have I really engaged you, but if you plan on that or even coming close? You're going to get embarrassed and I guarantee you won't like it because of how you'll look at the end and I won't like it for the time I'll have wasted.
Originally posted by The Lost
I'm going to go ahead and warn you right here because Twotter didn't get the same warning and got buried alive trying to argue genetics (and genealogy) with me from a position of scientific racism. I'm being one hundred percent genuine and not attempting to patronize. Seriously.I'm not automatically saying you're going to sit here and advocate or argue for scientific racism, as I don't know you nor have I really engaged you, but if you plan on that or even coming close? You're going to get embarrassed and I guarantee you won't like it because of how you'll look at the end and I won't like it for the time I'll have wasted.
I'm not arguing "for scientific racism", I just generally dislike bad/ignorant arguments and I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say (Flynn effect? Race is a social construct? Nitpicking methodology errors in Murray / etc.?). But of course, I don't know you that well either, so I could be wrong. I give Ziggy shit for making idiotic arguments on the other side of the spectrum too.
Like, I understand that virtue signaling can be necessary in real life but some people here think it's actually a reflection of empirical truth.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yes, the notion that you should actually debate empirical claims on the facts and research is worthy of mockery. There's a reason everyone on this forum considers you a joke of a debater, Neph. 👆
Ell, how is Asians "being white, just with pointy eyes and teeth" actually debate-worthy?
Originally posted by MythLord
Ell, how is Asians "being white, just with pointy eyes and teeth" actually debate-worthy?
I said that Ziggy is a troll but Neph did the exact same shitposting to me too; he just labels anyone who suggests a different statistical distribution in traits among groups a troll.
Spoiler:
Except for himself, given that he admitted to believing the same thing.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'm not arguing "for scientific racism", I just generally dislike bad/ignorant arguments and I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say (Flynn effect? Race is a social construct? Nitpicking methodology errors in Murray / etc.?). But of course, I don't know you that well either, so I could be wrong. I give Ziggy shit for making idiotic arguments on the other side of the spectrum too.
No, those wouldn't make the bulk of my argument. Race is socially constructed. If you think I'm predictable in proclaiming that, you have no idea exactly how equipped I'll be to deal with your disagreement of that (if you do, in fact, disagree).
Well, yeah. Giving Ziggy shit is easy because it's Ziggy.
Originally posted by The Lost
No, those wouldn't make the bulk of my argument. Race is socially constructed. If you think I'm predictable in proclaiming that, you have no idea exactly how equipped I'll be to deal with your disagreement of that (if you do, in fact, disagree).Well, yeah. Giving Ziggy shit is easy because it's Ziggy.
Race clearly isn't a social construct. If you wanna debate that here or on GDF I'd be happy to.